Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Barber (Conservative Politician)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barber (Conservative Politician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I personally think we should give more weight to council leaders than regular councillors, but the coverage in third-party sources is very thin and seem to relate more to the Conservative led council as a whole. Maybe it would make sense to have an article about leaders of the council. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another lite bio of an elected politician. You know what, I don't like the Conservatives, but that doesn't matter a whit. This is not a pissing contest and we shouldn't be wiping out political biographies just because. Carrite (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An elected politician, yes, but from a district council: should Wikipedia carry articles on parish council members too? I can't see how this meets the criteria for notability in WP:POLITICIAN: can you please expand? Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references to Conservatives and pissing contests mystified me, but the penny has just dropped: you think I'm cherrypicking articles on Tory councillors for deletion? I think I can see why: please allow me to clear up this misunderstanding.

I've been working on WP:New pages patrol a fair bit lately (see my contributions). When this AFD was created on 25 July 13:54 (same day of creation), I had merely tagged another new article, Martin Hill (councillor), for notability an hour earlier. No prod and no AFD anywhere in sight or mind: I assumed that more info on notability would be forthcoming.

When the tag was summarily removed with little further improvement, I prodded Martin Hill (councillor) at 15:01, then AFD'd it 15:33.

I have AFD'd many articles, but never a political biography. It seems that WP:AGF is harder to maintain on these, but please be assured that I am neither targeting articles on Conservatives in particular nor political biographies in general. These two articles simply happen to have been created on the same day, an hour apart, while I was doing NPP. You can see from my contributions that most of what I do is categorizing and improving new stuff. I have no political agenda whatsoever that I can detect. I hope this will be taken into account when evaluating this article for notability. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, more often than not politician deletions are agenda-driven, I believe. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources have incidental mentions of the subject and do not meet WP:GNG. The leader of a unitary authority or a County Council can be deemed to meet WP:POLITICIAN but not the leader of a district council which has very limited powers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - can only find run-of-the-mill third-party sources that one would expect for a local politician, so I think this fails WP:GNG. But I agree with a previous comment that more weight should be given to council leaders, and the services the council provides are not as low-level as one might assume, hence the "weak".--A bit iffy (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.